Have to say I agree. It's a disgusting feature--reminds me of a cattle call. And what makes it even worse is that one's stated preferences are ignored, which results in lots of people never getting any response whatsoever, and possibly, suffering unnecessary hurt feelings. Wonder who thought this up, and whetehr anyone likes it?

I hate the mutual match feature, as it ignores my stated pereferences. How does one turn it off?

Good point--that kind of misogynist exploitation is far more offensive,and dangerous, than the best combination of stand-in swaer words imaginable.

Sorry, but I think you do. I have observedd people censored for using stand-in terms for swears, not even the real terms. These terms are directed at one individual, not everyone, and strike me, at least, as the harmless expressions of exasperation or annoyance that many of us use every day.

So, a purge occurs, and eneretic people depart, leaving the forums a bit shorter of enrgy, though I guess we could call them polite. Strikes me as antithetical to growth--the sapping of virtual energy.

And just so you know, I say this without ever having uttered a word to either of the individuals I noticed who were involved in the latest fray. I had no dog in the fight; rather, am just interested in free speech, the energetic exchange of thoughts, and what I consider to be the too-vigorous guardianship of politesse.

How very odd it is to find Americans leap to the task of censuring others. How tiresome. If everyone on these sites spoke with one voice, do you think it might become a bit stale? I am not much of a poster, but I do read posts withsome frequency. I find that the increasing homogeneity of the voices, particularly with respect this forum, diminishes their vitality and interest.

Just out of curiosity--how does one learn that he or she is suspended? Do you get some letter of censure? Do robed figures show up at your house?

I find this one of the more hilarious aspects of the virtual forums. If such censorship existed in real life, the lawsuits would abound. here. we take it like lambs, threby dulling the liveliness of the site. Pity.

Thumper, I wish you luck in what must be your LEGAL endeavor to get access to your daughter. This is a right you have that will be enforced if you use the appropriate legal channels, which it sounds like you are beginning to.

Please do youself a favor, and NEVER express any sentiment toward your ex that might suggest you are a violent person. NEVER! You are doing yourself a great disservice by putting these sentiments in print, especially on an open forum, particularly since I doubt/hope you would never really act that way. Think of your daughter. How might she feel if she saw those statements at some later point? And what might your ex do with them even now?

Best of luck.

I think it is inappropriate to describe a mother's repsonse to this situation as bitter. She is defending her child, as well as trying to afford him or her a safe home, and the financial resources to which he or she is entitled. It is difficult not to give up when the going gets tough, and to decide that you will "do without" just to be rid of a poorly-behaving ex. But especially when children are young, and the ability of the custodial parent to earn is affected by the need to provide childcare, it is imperative that the custodial parent fight and fight and fight, if it comes to that. GET custody; GET support; and then you can laugh instead of being bitter.

That is an excellent response! And you can never make an exception.

I know someone who had, as part of her court order allowing her ex to have visitation, a requirement that he take and pass a breathalyzer test in her presence before she would release her children to him.

There definitely are child support guidelines in this country. But notice, the word is "guidelines" not regulations. Guidleines account for circumstances, and different states interpret and use guidelines in different ways.

Please, anyone who is attempting to become knowledgeable in this area: check with your local Child Support Enforcement office, or the Federal child support program, aka the IV-D program. Anecdotal advice is insufficient!

The demographics show the truth plainly. Being a single parent, especially an unwed single parent, makes the likelihood of living uncomfortably close to the poverty line a very serious risk, especially for young women. Education gets interrupted, jobs become less well-paying and fulfilling, child care becomes challenging to get and keep--the lsit goes on and on. No moral judgment intended here at all--it just happens to be true.

And there are many non-custodial parents who spend more on their car payments, credit card payments, etc. in a month than they ever do on their kids. Another cultural disgrace.

I do not mean to sound off-putting when I say I do not like to post. I
know a fair amount about child support, custody, visitation, and child
welfare. I don't like to overgeneralize, as laws differ from state to
state. But mostly, I hate getting into arguments with people who are
opinionated but misinformed. That happend to me a while ago on a
discussion thread concerning child support,and it truly bothered me,
particularly when I considered the level of need of the person whe was
asking the question.

In any case, here are a few general principles. Women, too often, are
bullied by exes who control them with the purse strings. In the case of
a person who posted here, she was being bullied by an ex who was trying
to convince her that she was guilty of "abandonment," a ridiculous
allegation, but one that becomes more true with each passing day that
she didn't fight aggressivley, march into the house, and demand the
children. Never buy that argument!! And know that once the children
reach the age of about 11, their voices ar elsitened to by the court,
often in the peroson of a court-appointed guardian ad litem, who
advocates for hrte children's best interests.

There are free legal advisors in every state who can advise custodial
parents, whoa reoften, but by no menas always, female. Title IV-D of
the Social Security Act created the Child Support Enforcement Program.
The IV-D Program, as it is known, has a federal office with all kinds of
resources, and offices all over the country, in every major city, that
provide FREE services to help get paternity established, if necessary;
establish a child support obligation; and help the custodial parent
collect that support. A custodial parent should never relinquish the
right to collect child support--it belongs tot the child,and it is the
child's right to have. The fight may be long and the money difficult to
collect, but many free resources are available. Especially if the
non-custodial parent's ssn is known, one can have bank accounts swept,
income tax returns diverted, the non-custodial parent's assets attached
or seized, licenses not renewed. The goal is to make is more difficult
for the non-custodial parent not to pay than to pay. Employers over a
certain size--pretty small--are REQUIRED to cooperate by identifying
individuals who owe child support. Wages can be withheld. Inheritances
can be grabbed. Medical insurance can be required. Military personnel
can have their wages and benefits assigned. The remedies I describe are
available across statelines, and in many cases, internationally.

My advice is not to be bullied and never to give up. Never send the
message to your child that you are a victim, unless true physical danger
to you or your child is involved, and then the police should be involved
and a protective order sought. That has the additional benefit of
strengthening your custody claim.

I say this as a professional involved with these matters--in a former
job--but also as a single parent of four teens. My ex is a powerful and
successful attorney, whose idea of fair play was to empty the bank
accounts in an effort to stop me from beig able to fight him. I refused
to allow him to bully me, and fought him every step of the way. Today, I
have sole physical custody of my children, alimony, child support,
other benefits, all while holding a fulltime responsible job. Maybe
most important, my children know that I will not allow anyone to debase
me or them. That's my message. Be well and be strong.

I would talk to you about this via email if you'd like; I do not like
posting. Why on earth have you given up the custody issue?

Try putting him in a hooded sweatshirt with a pkg of frozen peas inside
the hood. keep rotating the packs--the hood will keep them in place
even while he sleeps.

Words are the sirens.
They beckon call seduce
Evoke inspire lead.
But then what?

Tools of their creators
That also mater them
For a time.
They can create, strengthen, support, and lead
And as easily, bewitch, betray, and mislead
Even the strongest.

How does sone know, much less love
In the woprld of language?
How does one see, touch, hear, or smell
Through the blackness of print?
Is anything there?
Is nothing real?

No stars to guide
No path of light
No clarity of vision
No limits, no rules
No neeed, no consequence
No breath no blood.
Distance without perspective
Pictures without frames
Horizons without limits
Embraces of nothing
Cold cruel comfort.

Death from the call of the siren may be quick or slow
Languorous and erotic, perhaps,
But mean physical harsh as life when it comes.
Illusion drream and myth recede
To await the real dawn.

Employers of any size are required by law to coperate with the child
support enforcement program. And you are correct, wage withholding is
the ideal way to get support coming in on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, many who should be paying go to great lengths to avoid
being caught up in the system. They classify themselves as
self-employed, work only in very small businesses, work as contractors,
change jobs often, and move from state to state. All of these issues
can be dealt with by the child support enforcement system, but time
lapses occur, and it is expensive and debilitating for the custodial
parent to keep up with them. Far too often, then, those who should be
paying wear down the custodial parent, and thus, get away with depriving
children of the support they deserve. That's a sad cultural commentary.

That is a truly strange observation. Are you suggesting that one
partner should put up with the protracted wrongdoings of the other "for
the sake of the kids"? Or that one partner "made" the kids, while the
other one just watched? That is bizarre to me. In my case, I decided
to end a marriage to a philanderer precisely because I did not want my
kids--three teenaged girls and an almost teenaged boy--to think that my
self-esteem was so low that I would trade it for financial security with
their dad. What kind of role model would I have been? It has a lot
less to do with happiness than you seem to think. It has to do with
acceptable behavior and an appropriate valuation of the self. To this
day, my ex makes at least six times what I make, and I have not one
regret that we divorced. And my children are closer to me than ever.

Here is the bottom line. Two people make children, and two people are
responsible for them. Anger and vengeance are not appropriate parts of
that equation, and research clearly indicates what tends to happen to
obligors once they set up single-parent households. Accounting for the
paltry sums that tends to be collected is a colossal waste of time,
especially as the formulas are income-driven, not expense driven.

Again, a primary model for determining support is an income equalization
model, whcih proffers that children are entitled to live in one
household as they do in another--that assumes going back and forth with
custody. Each parent does have to provide a financial statement. If it
is validated, why would there need to be a monthly accounting? Is that
not somewhat patronizing, especially given the typically low amount that
is ordered as support? Your suggestion seems to stem from a belief or a
suspicion that the custodial parent has lots of money to spare, and htat
is demographically, and demonstrably not the case. Non-compliance has
everything to do with the obligee--he or she makes the decison not to
support his or her child/ren. They have legitimate need, regardless of
what the obligee may want to believe about the obligor. Non-compliance
is the result of many factors,and is being enhanced substantially by
remedies like tax return interception, seizure of assets like cars,
refusal of license renewals, etc. That suggests to me a prioritization
problem--as in, I value my car more than my children--and not anything
to do witht he financers of the obligor. I cannot tell you how many
times non-custodial parents are dragged into court for contempt, and it
is only when they are told to "bring a toothbrush," as in, "get ready
for jail," that the back support appears.

The best strategy for obtaining support, of course, is to maintain
something of a cordial relstionship with the ex, offer free access to
the child/ren where possible, and implement a wage withholding order as
soon as htere is a problem of delayed or non-payment.

In any event, I am glad you are interested.

Well, then I suppose what you desire is not illogical, but it is
unnecessary based on demographics of obligors and their children,and
practically speaking, probably undoable and unenforceable. Especially
given that the compliance rate on obligees hovered around 30% when I
last checked (a while ago--it undoubtedly is higher now), I think that
the staff time of the child support program (the IV-D program) or the
IRS would be better used in an alternative way--lke paternity
establishment or interstate enforcement in the case of the child support
program, or white collar tax fraud in the case of the IRS.

But that's just my view--the biggest bang for the buck.